How I Stand

Euclid Public Library, accessed 1/3/2017

Most of my policy ideas are not actually all that radical or involve dramatic rearrangements of our existing public institutions.  Yes we need to eliminate the legalized corruption we have in our system that comes in the form of campaign dollars.  Yes we need to have neutral ways to draw districts so that politicians aren't choosing their constituents.  Yes we need a different logic in law enforcement and policy-making in general, such that society's well-being is prioritized for the government's sake.  And yes, we need to actually produce and use the best evidence we can get to make the better choices, which lead to the better outcomes for governed and governing alike.  But the basic bones of the American system of government is fairly stable, distributive, and responsive compared to other systems found throughout the world.

The following is a series of sections on specific changes and policies I would like to see at the moment.  For the ease of the reader, I have broken them up with headings to present the thoughts in a clearer way.

Core Philosophy of the US, Critique and Opportunity:

In fact, the only major core element of the Founding Fathers I would like to see less of is the notion that government is not needed to play a practical and leading role in the development of society, economies, and systems of social organization.  When there hasn't been a strong, proactive government on the side of the people and not the people who have access, the American society has tended to do better than when private interests, businesspeople, and profiteers are running the show.  We cannot, it seems, have both liberty and social stability and resiliency.  When you maximize the "freedom" of individuals to act independently and without regard for their relations to others, you get problems in the social unit, and the reversion back to the worst kinds of tyrannies we fought against to prevent.  When we are united in a common goal beyond the making and consumption of material wealth, we tend to actually do better than when we're just collectively engaged in maximizing the bottom line for shareholders and ourselves.  We as humans need physical and psychological health, social connections, and a healthy environment to live in before money and other forms of material wealth.  It's not a sin to be rich, but it is quite stupid to try and climb a mountain by collapsing its base.

The Most Extreme Policy-Shift, Nationalize the MIC:

In terms of specific policies, the most sweeping and different reform I would support is the nationalization of the military-industrial complex.  The logic behind this would be to remove the profit incentive from military operations, and to produce better and more strategically relevant technologies at fractions of the price the private sector would charge for inferior work and workmanship.  The system would work by paying the workers of those companies an additional bi-weekly sum in addition to a standard universal basic income scheme that would be for the general public.  The research wings would be split into teams, who'd compete for medium bonuses and credit in some rounds of the research process, and would cross-pollinate and share ideas regularly in others.  In this way, blue-collar factory workers can support families and get training in other professions while they're in-between demand for military production, thus saving the Congresspeople from angry, unemployed voters.  Politically this would also be one of the more challenging of my goals to accomplish as of 2017 CE.  But I believe it's worth floating out there as a seed that may or may not grow into something someday when the time is ripe.

 Education, a Fundamental Tool for Social Success:

Other than this one anomaly, my other policy stances are basically based on the premise that governments are needed in societies and economies to protect, maintain, and develop them within the constraints of a finite and temperamental environment.  A big social priority for me is reforming education to be more appropriate for child development and enrichment, with properly compensated and trained professionals working at schools, day-cares and other wrap-around services for families.  The challenge would be to do this at an efficient rate in an effective way for producing healthy, well-adjusted, and happy adults to live in our society.  I believe that if you want to know where a society is headed in the long term, a good prediction is on how it values and delivers educational services to its offspring.  This is for national security and survival, since better educated, inclusive, and accepting societies are, I believe, more likely to do better and be flexible than societies that are less well educated, less inclusive, and less accepting of others.

Healthcare, A Right:

Another specific stance I have is for universal healthcare that all people can take advantage of (although it would be good for us to research other models for how to let non-citizens use it, since I'd like it so that anyone who is ill or injured can seek affordable physical or psychological healthcare in this country).  Healing individuals is not a done well under a for-profit model, if your intended outcome is a healthier population and workforce.  This, again, is a matter of national security and survival, since unhealthy people cannot defend the country as well as healthy people, nor can they work as well to produce our economic goods and services.

Business, Economics, and the Environment:

Finally, as a broad economic stance, I support government involvement in developing new technologies and innovations for a clean, renewable, and resource-light economy, and genuinely independent oversight and regulation of private sector economic actors (business owners and shareholders) for the sake of the whole society and the environment.  The thing about being a "high status" individual in society, is that you lose individual freedom the higher you go up, and the more people you influence indirectly through your choices.  If you're truly interested in owning your own "empire" and affecting millions, if not billions of other people through your economic and social activities, it stands to reason that you must also end up being the least free individuals in human society in order to preserve that high status.  In order to avoid both public and private institutions from getting destroyed, accountability must be had to a not-for-profit entity who's self-interest, institutional design, and game-theoretic logic is to help the society and the environment while not choking off the engines of productivity too much for the public sector's personal financial gain.  Just as governments and government officials are needed to be accountable to the society, the businesses and business leaders must be accountable to the government because it is accountable to the society.  Society affects its own self through its own choices and preferences of government, which then affects the business leader's political economy and chances of also prospering.  Society either rewards or punishes itself with the choices it makes in its internal world, as well as how it relates to other societies and the environment.

This is before we consider the fact that government revenues are dependent on society's economic activity, potential, and ability to provide for the needs and wants of all.  A poorly paid worker simply becomes a person in need of tax-payer provided assistance, which is then a public expense and a potential social liability at risk of crime, ill-health, poor social connections, and the host of other physical, psychological, and social problems that come with poverty.  It is, I believe, better for workers to be paid on the basis of mandated payroll proportions, where the top earners' pay can only be a certain proportion higher than the lowest paid workers.  If the boss wants a raise, they must also give raises to the rest of the people who help produce the wealth.  This goes along with a simplified, progressive tax system, where the wealthy are taxed on their incomes, and the less well of people contribute at some points in consumption-based taxes.  Corporations likewise would not be permitted to shift money around internationally to avoid taxation, and other revenue streams could be explored for some government services that businesses can't do business without (such as patent, trademark, and copyright fees, data access, etc).  The goal would be to make society more business friendly by giving the businesses what they need and want to do business, but at a reasoned price instead of free at society's ultimate expense.  It would be great for government to explore and consider what businesses actually need and want to do business better (which isn't the same as asking business owners directly, but would involve understanding the system of systems that businesses work within).  A few ideas off the top of my head include healthy workers, well-paid consumers (who are the workers too), physical and social infrastructure for the business community, and new technologies aimed at clean, efficient, renewable, and resource-light products and services that are too risky, long-term, and/or expensive for the businesses to pursue on their own.  Economic development would be down at lower levels of social organization at first to experiment, and then scaled up and/or spread out as per the appropriateness of the policies and programs.

Law and Law Enforcement:

One key area of reform that is needed in our society is in our police forces and justice system.  I respect that law enforcement officers work a dangerous and dirty job that actually needs to be performed in society.  However, I wish they would recognize that when they behave capriciously, without account for their actions, and go without internalizing proper training in de-escalation, cultural sensitivity, and social graces, their jobs get all that harder to do as people come to despise them.  The conflict between the police and all communities, especially communities of color, must end.  The only ones who can start the healing process are the police, because the poor-behavior is coming from them, and the government can order them to reform with the stroke of a pen and consistent correction of poor behavior until it changes.  The healing will take generations to do, but this is again a national security question.  Police may come down hard on people.  But the legitimacy of the government dissolves as this happens, and it becomes increasingly difficult for police and public officials to govern as that happens.

Conclusion:

This sums up what I perceive to be the core problems that need addressing in our socio-economic-environmental systems on the domestic policy front.  International relations is a different category that also needs addressing, but not in this specific post.  Indeed, once we get a more solid basis in our domestic policy world, we will be better able to address global and international challenges.  Above all, the US governments and its officials must recognize human psychology, and have respect for other people and peoples both in and outside of our own society.  Without this fundamental ability to empathize and perceive win-win solutions to problems both foreign and domestic, we will be sitting ducks as other, potentially less benevolent societies rise to take our place as prime domestic and international leaders.